LAW

<

ADVANCED JURISPRUDENCE

CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE: RAWLS, HAYEK, NOZICK, SEN AND NUSSBAUM

Component-I (A)- Personal Details

Principal Investigator Prof. Ranbir Singh VC NLU Delhi
Co-Principal Prof. G.S. Bajpai Registrar, NLU Delhi
Investigator
Paper Coordinator Prof. Sri Krishna Deva VC NLU Odisha
Rao
Content Writer Dr. Afroz Alam Associate Professor, Maulana Azad National
Urdu University, Hyderabad
Content Reviewer

Component-I (B)- Description of Module

Description of Module
Subject Name Law
Paper Name Advanced Jurisprudence
Module Name/Title Conceptions of Social Justice: Rawls, Hayek, Nozick, Sen and
Nussbaum
Module Id Module 3
Pre-requisites A general understanding of social justice is required for a proper
 understanding of this module.
Objectives After going through this module, you should be able to:
 understand the meaning and nature of social justice;
 understand the overarching theoretical frameworks of social
justice developed by John Rawls, Friedrich Hayek, Robert
Nozick, Amartya Sen, and Martha C. Nussbaum
 articulate your own positions in a clear, coherent and logical
manner on the issues of social justice; and
 examine issues concerning social injustice, and critically
analyse them with remedial tools.
Key Words Social Justice, Difference Principle, Primary Goods, Spontaneous
Order, Capability,

MODULE OVERVIEW:
For centuries, human society is constantly assessed with the principle of social justice.
Yet the demands and principles of social justice are not always clear. What is social
justice? Why does social justice matter? Is it concerned with equal opportunity or
outcome or distribution of resources or capabilities or removal of poverty or creation of
just institutions? As a result, there are great theoretical disagreements on the issues and
remedies of the social justice concepts. For example, John Rawls’ egalitarian overtones
of social justice was criticised by the libertarian scholars. Friedrich Hayek regarded
social justice as a ‘weasel word’, while Robert Nozick argued that if individuals have
acquired their property through just transactions, then whatever results is just. On the
other hand, Amartya Sen and Martha C. Nussbaum approached the question of justice on
a totally different terrain of ‘capability’. In this background, we aim to explore broad
context of social justice issues in different theoretical frameworks through the writings
and opinions of eminent thinkers like John Rawls, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick,
Amartya Sen, and Martha C. Nussbaum. In this process, we think, it is also essential to
understand the relationship between theories of justice and the values of liberty,
equality and capability together.

OBJECTIVES
After studying this module you should be able to:
 understand the meaning and nature of social justice;
 understand the overarching theoretical frameworks of social justice developed
by John Rawls, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen, and Martha C.
Nussbaum
 articulate your own positions in a clear, coherent and logical manner on the
issues of social justice; and
 examine issues concerning social injustice, and critically analyse them with
remedial tools.
INTRODUCTION:
The term ‘social justice’ in the modern sense has been
used to ensure social well being of the people. It is
generally argued that in conditions of social justice,
people are "not be discriminated against, nor their
welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on
the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political
affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social
class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other
characteristic of background or group membership"
(Toowoomba Catholic Education, 2006)1. However, as
a distinctive concept, social justice is concerned with
the just distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges in the society as well as
wages, profits, housing, medical care, welfare schemes to meet the principle of justice.
In a word, social justice is all about ‘who should get what and how’. Opinions of the
political thinkers are highly divided on ‘what is called just distribution.’ As a result, a
number of contrasting principles of social justice came into effect like ‘to each according
to his needs’, ‘to each according to his rights’, ‘to each according to his deserts’, ‘to each
according to his labour’, and ‘to each according to his capability.’ To address the issues of
social justice more seriously, we will focus on the work of five thinkers, Rawls, Friedrich
Hayek, Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen, and Martha C. Nussbaum.

1
Cf. Matthew Robinson, “What is Social Justice?”, Department of Government and Justice Studies,
Appalachian State University
http://gjs.appstate.edu/social-justice-and-human-rights/what-social-justice

ABOUT JOHN RAWLS
• John Bordley Rawls (1921-2002) was an
American philosopher and a prominent
figure in moral and political philosophy.
• His father was a prominent lawyer, his
mother a chapter president of the League
of Women Voters.
• Rawls studied at Princeton, where he was
influenced by Wittgenstein's student
Norman Malcolm; and at Oxford, where he
worked with H. L. A. Hart, Isaiah Berlin,
and Stuart Hampshire.
• In 1962 Rawls joined the faculty at
Harvard, where he taught for more than
thirty years.
• Rawls lost his Christian faith as an
infantryman in World War II on seeing the
horrors of the Holocaust.
• Rawls received both the Schock Prize for
Logic and Philosophy and the National
Humanities Medal in 1999.
• Rawls's books include A Theory of Justice
(1971); Political Liberalism (1993), and
The Law of Peoples (1999)
•
JOHN RAWLS: EGALITARIAN
DISCOURSE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
The egalitarian discourse on ‘social
justice’ reached its high point in 1971
with the publication of A Theory of Justice,
written by the Harvard philosopher John
Rawls. To Rawls, social justice is about
assuring the protection of equal access to
liberties, rights, and opportunities, as
well as taking care of the least
advantaged members of society. In this
pursuit, Rawls argues for a theory of
justice, which is based on the
maintenance of the following two
principles.
1. Each person is to have an equal
right to the most extensive basic
liberty compatible with a similar
liberty for all.
2. Social and economic equalities are
to be arranged so that they are
both (a) to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged; and (b)
attached to offices and positions
to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity.
Rawls’ first principle is a familiar one –
each person has an equal right to free
speech, association, conscience, thought,
property, a fair trial, to vote, hold
political office if qualified and so on.
Principle 2a is also familiar – jobs and
services should be open to all (equal
access), but furthermore society should
be so arranged that as far as possible
people have an equal opportunity to get
jobs and gain access to services. Principle
2b- famously known as the difference
principle-is the novel one and points
towards a significant measure of social
equality but not in the absolute sense.
Rawls' conception of social justice asserts
that material inequalities are only
justifiable when they work to the
advantage of the less well-off. Rawls
explains the difference principle this
way: "To say that inequalities in income
and wealth are to be arranged for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged simply
means that we are to compare schemes of cooperation by seeing how well off the least
advantaged are under each scheme, and then to select the scheme under which the least
advantaged are better off than they are under any other scheme."
By the least advantaged, Rawls is referring to those who lack what he calls "primary
goods". Primary goods, according to Rawls, include "things needed and required by
persons seen in the light of the political conception of persons, as citizens who are fully
cooperating members of society, and not merely as human beings apart from any
normative conception. These goods are things citizens need as free and equal persons
living a complete life; they are not things it is simply rational to want or desire, or to
prefer or even to crave". Such goods include:
 The basic rights and liberties: freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, and
the rest;
 Freedom of movement and free choice of occupation against a background of
diverse opportunities, which opportunities allow the pursuit of a variety of ends
and give effect to decisions to revise and alter them;
 Powers and prerogatives of office and position of authority and responsibility;
 Income and wealth, understood as all-purpose means (having an exchange
value) generally needed to achieve a wide range of ends whatever they may be;
and
 The social bases of self-respect, understood as those aspects of basic
institutions normally essential if citizens are to have a lively sense of their worth
as persons and to be able to advance their ends with self-confidence.

Rawls also argues that the first principle-the basic liberty principle- has ‘lexical priority
in case of conflict over the second principle. That means you cannot sacrifice liberty for
economic justice. You must satisfy fully the equal liberty principle before applying the
difference principle. Similarly, the principle of fair equality of opportunity has priority
over the difference principle.

ABOUT FREDERICH VON HAYEK
• Friedrich Von Hayek was born in
Vienna, as Friedrich August von Hayek
in 1899 and died in 1992.
• His life's work, for which he won a
Nobel Prize in 1974, illuminated the
nature and significance of spontaneous
order. Hayek also served in World War
I.
• He spent most of his academic life at
the London School of Economics (LSE),
the University of Chicago, and
the University of Freiburg.
• He was the first recipient of the Hanns
Martin Schleyer Prize in 1984. He also
received the US Presidential Medal of
Freedom in 1991.
• In 2011, his article "The Use of
Knowledge in Society" was selected as
one of the top 20 articles published
in The American Economic Review
during its first 100 years.
• Scholarly Works: Prices and Production,
Monetary Nationalism and International
Stability, The Road to Serfdom; The
Constitution of Liberty; Law, Legislation
and Liberty
Rawls specifies that "fair equality of
opportunity" requires "not merely that
public offices and social positions open in
the formal sense, but that all should have a
fair chance to attain them."
Nevertheless, Rawlsian idea of ‘social
justice’ became subject to the intellectual
and political onslaught in the name of
economic efficiency. The pursuit of social
justice is harming economic growth and to
the detriment of all members of the society.
The intellectual strand of this reaction was
developed by Frederich von Hayek and
Robert Nozick. Let us look at their
conception of justice.
FREDERICH VON HAYEK: SOCIAL
JUSTICE – A MIRAGE!
Frederich von Hayek, the winner of Nobel
Prize for Economics in 1974, offered neo-
liberal critic to the idea of social justice. His
views on social justice are best described as
outgrowths of his economic doctrines that
the economic policy of governments should
be as noninterventionist to facilitate
rational economic decision making by
individuals in the market. The freedom to
make rational economic decisions will
create an environment of rational social
coordination which eventually bring what
he called ‘‘spontaneous order.’’ Such
observations led Hayek to conclude that the
state should play a far more modest and
minimal role in regulating social and
economic cooperation.
In the second volume of Law, Legislation
and Liberty, Hayek asserted that social
justice is a "mirage." His discontent with
social justice could easily be marked when
he also called social justice a "will-o-the-
wisp", an "empty formula," "empty and
meaningless"; " a vacuous concept; "a quasi-
religious belief with no content
whatsoever", a
"primitive...anthropomorphism" like
believing in witches or the philosopher's
stone, or a "hollow incantation" like "open
sesame". He further argues that social justice is a particularly dangerous superstition,
describing it as "that incubus which today makes fine sentiments the instruments for the
destruction of all values of a free civilization", leading to "the destruction of the
indispensable environment in which the traditional moral values alone can flourish,
namely personal freedom" Furthermore, social justice has become a source of "sloppy
thinking and even intellectual dishonesty". In his later work on the errors of socialism,
entitled The Fatal Conceit, he called the word "social" a "weasel word". He referred to
"social justice" as "much the worst use of 'social', one that "wholly destroys" the
meaning of the word it qualifies, a "semantic fraud."
It should be added that Hayek’s hostile remarks on social justice and insistence on
minimal government is much influenced by an inveterate tendency to mistrust the
motives of politicians. In essence, he is not claiming that the idea of social justice is
meaningless in its intent. In fact, he looked at human conduct and situations created by
human in terms of just or unjust. In this line, Hayek does not deny that we may have a
duty to help reduce inequality and suffering and caused by others or by nature. He also
implicitly accepts the legitimacy of state provision of income support for those who can't
support themselves in the market. Hayek, for example, suggests that a scheme for
assistance against severe deprivation is in the interest of all; indeed, he adds that ‘it may
be felt a duty of all to assist, within the organized community, those who cannot help
themselves’. Here, Hayek agreed to the principle that there may be a moral imperative to
put in place a minimum income.
In his earlier work, The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek conceded that a more equal
distribution of income or wealth was desirable, but did not approve the desirability of
"discriminatory coercion or privilege" as sufficient justification to achieve the same.
Hayek also offered a specific principle - the principle of maximizing the chances of
success for any person picked out at random, success in satisfying whatever purposes
that person may have. Hayek also argues that there is "no need morally to justify specific
distributions (of income or wealth) which have not been brought about deliberately but
are the outcome of a game that is played because it improves the chances of all". His
confidence in libertarian society laid him to claim in Social Justice, Socialism and
Democracy that the least well off under a free market society do better and get more
than they would in an egalitarian centrally-directed system.

ABOUT ROBERT NOZICK
• Robert Nozick was born in
Brooklyn in 1938 to a
Russian Jewish immigrant
family and died in 2002 from
stomach cancer.
• He earned his Ph.D. in
Philosophy from Princeton
University in 1963.
• He taught for a couple of
years at Princeton, Harvard,
and Rockerfeller Universities
before moving permanently
to Harvard in 1969.
• He became widely known
through his 1974
book, Anarchy, State, and
Utopia. His other books
include—Philosophical
Explanations (1981), The
Examined Life(1989), The
Nature of Rationality (1993).
ROBERT NOZICK ON ‘ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF
JUSTICE’
Robert Nozick, through his book Anarchy, State and
Utopia made serious attempt in the second half of the
twentieth century to reaffirm the values and beliefs of
‘classical’ liberalism. As such, it quickly became one of
the key texts of the so called ‘Libertarian’ and ‘New
Right’. This text is a leading philosophical counter
statement of Nozick to the ideas of social justice
developed by John Rawls. Drawing from Lockean
doctrine of inalienable ‘natural’ rights, Nozick argues
for the ‘entitlement theory of justice. The basic
presumption of Nozick is that societies consist simply
of individuals, each of whom is assumed to be
endowed by nature with rights that no government
may infringe or abrogate without their bearer’s
consent. One consequence of the inviolability and
moral supremacy of the individual is that the
infringement of individual’s right for supposedly
greater good is inadmissible in any process of political
decision-making. Another consequence is that the only
kind of state that is rationally justifiable is a ‘minimal’
state, equipped with just enough power to perform the
functions of protection and defence: a state, that is,
that will impinge upon the rights of its subjects as little
as possible.
He suggested three justice preserving principles.
1. A principle of justice in initial acquisition
explains the circumstances under which
property can be appropriated from nature. It
means, wealth has to be justly acquired in the
first place, that is, it should not have been
stolen and the rights of others should not have
been infringed.
2. A principal justice in transfer explains how
property can justly be transferred from one
person to another. It means the justly acquired
wealth has to be justly transferred from one
responsible person to another.
3. A principle of justice in rectification deals with
violations of the first two principles. It means, if
wealth has been acquired or transferred
unjustly this injustice should be rectified.
 Three Preserving Principles of Justice

It is clear from the above principle that like Hayek and many other libertarians, Nozick
was also deeply suspicious about the idea of social justice and rejected absolutely the
moral basis of the redistribution of wealth and resources. He argues that if wealth is
transferred from rich to poor, either within a society or between societies, it is only as
an act of private charity, undertaken through personal choice rather than moral
obligation.

CAPABILITY APPROACH TO JUSTICE

Capability approach has been developed in the late twentieth century as an alternative
to distributional equality principle to social justice. It was initially proposed by Amartya
Sen, and developed by Martha Nussbaum and others. Let us discuss the conception of
these two scholars in further detail. Both Sen and Nussbaum have argued that justice is
concerned with the distribution of capabilities, which are the effective abilities
(opportunities) of individuals to function.
1. AMARTY SEN AND JUSTICE

Amartya Sen, through his recent intervention, The Idea of Justice and earlier works like
Development as Freedom, On Economic Inequality, Poverty and Famines approached the
question of justice differently. Sen argues that the classical theories of social justice are
in error while addressing the questions of' capability.
In Development as Freedom, Se argues that what matters is not what resources you have
or what level of subjective welfare you can achieve, but rather what your resources and
other opportunities allow you to ‘do and be.’ Sen calls this phenomenon as your
‘capability function.’ For Sen, different individuals might need different packages of
resources to function to the same degree, dependent on their particular needs. Sen
further argues that a functioning is an ‘achieved’ being or doing- being healthy, having
control over your environment, and so on- whereas a capability is, in effect, one’s
opportunity to achieve a functioning. For example, if a rich person decides to fast, he or
she may lack the functioning of nutrition, but he or she still has the capability. The
person could nourish himself if he or she were choose to do so. Sen thus propounds that
 government should be concerned with ensuring the concrete capabilities of their
citizens rather than functionings.
ABOUT AMARTYA SEN
• Amartya Kumar Sen (1933-) is
an Indian economist and
philosopher.
• He was awarded the Nobel
Memorial Prize in Economic
Sciences in 1998 for his work in
welfare economics.
• In 1972, he joined the London
School of Economics as a
Professor of Economics where he
taught until 1977. He also taught
at the University of Oxford,
Harvard and Trinity College,
Cambridge.
• His most notable works include
On Economic Inequality; Poverty
and Famines; Inequality Re-
examined; The Quality of Life with
Martha Nussbaum; Development
as Freedom; The Argumentative
Indian; The Idea of Justice; and
An Uncertain Glory: The
Contradictions of Modern India
with Jean Dreze
Through his book Idea of Justice Amartya
Sen offered a powerful critique of the Rawlsia
notion of social justice. His criticism of Rawls is
revolving around the neglect of nyaya for niti by
Rawls. The niti–nyaya distinction ranges over two
disagreements. First, Rawls focuses upon what a
perfectly just society should do, whereas for Sen,
the most important problems that we need to
confront are comparative problems, concerning
ways of moving toward societies that are less
unjust. Second, for Rawls, justice is essentially
about institutions and the particular distributions
of goods are derivatively just if they are produced
by just institutions; Sen, on the contrary, thinks
that justice is essentially about ‘how well or badly
off individuals actually are’, and ‘what happens
to people’.
Sen linked capabilities with substantive freedom,
focuses on the actual ability to do different things
that a person values. For example, a person with a
large amount of wealth cannot be considered
advantaged if she suffers from a severe disability.
Rawls's primary goods are for Sen ‘feticist’
because they wrongly consider primarily means
where they should rather consider ends. For
example, poverty cannot be properly understood
just in terms of income (or wealth, for that
matter). Because, Sen claims, what really counts
is the way in which different persons convert
income or primary goods into good living.
Disabilities constitute another relevant example
because they clearly point to a difficulty in the
conversion of resources into capabilities.
 2. MARTHA NUSSBAUM AND
JUSTICE
Martha Nussbaum worked in
collaboration with Sen on issues of
development and contributed
significantly so far as the
"capabilities approach" to justice is
concerned. She uses the term ‘basic
capabilities’ to refer to “the innate
equipment of individuals that is
necessary for developing the more
advanced capabilities”, such as the
capability of speech and language,
which is present in a newborn but
needs to be fostered.
In her book Frontiers of Justice she
states there can be various other
factors involved such as “a wide
range of motives, including the love
of justice itself, and prominently
including a moralized compassion
for those who have less than they
need to lead decent and dignified
lives.” She has also been critical to
Sen’s idea of HDI as to say that
nations being compared in areas
such as health and educational
attainment are very fine. But
concerning what level of health
service, or what level of educational
provision, a just society would
deliver as a fundamental
entitlement of all its citizens; the
view is suggestive, but basically
silent.
Nussbaum’s views on state action in
the mitigation of human justice, has
the state take on a positive role. She
agrees with Sen regarding the
existence of negative rights instead
ABOUT MARTHA NUSSBAUM
• Martha Craven Nussbaum (born May
6, 1947) is
an American philosopher and the
current Ernst Freund Distinguished
Service Professor of Law and Ethics at
the University of Chicago.
• She previously taught
at Harvard and Brown.
• She has received honorary degrees
from fifty colleges and universities
from across the world.
• She received the Grawemeyer Award
in Education in 2002, the Barnard
College Medal of Distinction in 2003,
the Radcliffe Alumnae Recognition
Award in 2007, and the Centennial
Medal of the Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences at Harvard University in
2010. In 2012 she was awarded the
Prince of Asturias Prize in the Social
Sciences.
• Her major works include: The Fragility
of Goodness (1986); Loves knowledge
(1990); The Therapy of Desire (1994);
Poetic Justice (1995); Cultivating
Humanity (1997); Sex and Social
Justice (1998); Women and Human
Development (2000); Upheavals of
Thought. The Intelligence of Emotions
(2001); Frontiers of Justice (2006);
The Clash Within (2007); Liberty of
Conscience (2008); Not For Profit
(2010); Creating
Capabilities(2011); and Political
Emotions (2013).
of positive rights. “Often fundamental entitlements have been understood as
prohibitions against interfering state action, and if the state keeps its hands off, those
rights are taken to have been secured; the state has no further affirmative task.” says
she. This, she says leaves things disgracefully undetermined as to whether hindrances
supplied by the market, or private actors, are to be considered violations of fundamental
rights of citizens. Rather she demands a affirmative understanding of Fundamental
rights, believing it to be extremely important for establishment of Social Justice, an
understanding that “directs governments to think from the start about what obstacles
there are to full and effective empowerment for all citizens, and to devise measures that
address these obstacles.”

Nussbaum not only strengthened the capability approach but also produced a
provisional list of capabilities in her book Women and Human Development: The
Capabilities Approach, which she claims has universal validity and should be enshrined
in every country's constitution

Nussbaum’s list of capabilities

 Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length.
 Bodily health: Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to
be adequately nourished, to have adequate shelter.
 Bodily integrity: Being able to move freely from place to place; being able to be
secure against assault, including sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and
domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in
that matter of reproduction.
  Sense, imagination and thought: Being able to think, imagine and reason- and to
do these things in a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education.
Freedom of speech, expression and religion.
 Emotions: Being able to have attachments to things and people outside to
ourselves; to love those who love and care for us.
 Practical reason: Being able to engage in critical reflection about the planning of
one’s life.
 Affiliation: Being able to live with and toward others, to recognise and show
concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social
interaction. Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation. Not
being discriminated against on the basis of gender, religion, race, ethnicity, and
the like.
 Other species: Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals,
plants, and the world of nature.
 Play: Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
 Control over one’s environment: Being able to participate effectively in political
choices that govern one’s life. Being able to have real opportunity to hold
property. Having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others.

Nussbaum not only advocates that everyone is entitled, as a matter of justice, to

threshold levels of all the capabilities on her list; but also insisted that it is the
governments' duties to guarantee these entitlements. Nevertheless, she remains silent
on the question who precisely should bear the burdens and responsibilities for realizing
these capabilities.

SUMMARY

 Social justice is concerned with the just distribution of resources, opportunities,

and privileges in the society as well as wages, profits, housing, medical care,
welfare schemes to meet the principle of justice.
 To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to
liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged
members of society.
 Hayek concludes that the state should play a far more modest and minimal role in
regulating social and economic cooperation.
 The basic presumption of Nozick is that societies consist simply of individuals,
each of whom is assumed to be endowed by nature with rights that no
government may infringe or abrogate without their bearer’s consent.
 Sen argues that what matters is not what resources you have or what level of
subjective welfare you can achieve, but rather what your resources and other
opportunities allow you to ‘do and be.’ Sen calls this phenomenon as your
‘capability function.’
  In her book Frontiers of Justice, Nussubaum states there can be various other
factors involved such as “a wide range of motives, including the love of justice
itself, and prominently including a moralized compassion for those who have less
than they need to lead decent and dignified lives.”

CONCLUSION:

To sum up, the term ‘social justice’ is widely used in political and philosophical debates,
and fiercely contested. This has given rise to diverse perspectives on social justice. Many
of these concentrate on devising principles for the distribution of scarce goods.
However, by the late 1970s, the goal of social justice was challenged and was largely
supplanted by an emphasis on economic growth and individual freedom.

Nevertheless, we have discussed some promising recent theoretical developments on

the question of social justice that may help to resolve some of the issues of everyday
relevance. With substantive focus on liberty, the egalitarian framework of John Rawls
accommodated the principles of equal opportunity and inequality to favour the least
disadvantageous section of the society.

However, Rawlsean pursuit of social justice was treated detrimental to all the members
of the society by the intellectual strand of libertarianism developed by Hayek and
Nozick. They argued that government action to enforce a theory of social justice
interefered with the liberty of individuals to govern their own lives and property. But,
more fundamentally, Hayek and Nozick both argued that society as a whole cannot be
assessed as just or unjust.

An alternative to distributional principle of social justice was articulated as capability

approach initially proposed by Amartya Sen, and developed by Marth Nussbaum. This
approach has been influential in two ways: first, it has been applied to development
economics; second, it has helped to move forward the debate on equality and social
justice.

DID YOU KNOW?

1. 68% of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant
2. Low-income and minority Americans tend to live and work in areas
disproportionately exposed to pollution
3. 66% of Hispanics live in areas that do not meet the federal government’s air quality
standards
4. African American children have a 500% higher death rate from asthma, as compared
with White children
5. 85% of inner-city children with asthma have uncontrolled symptoms
6. Over 72% of African Americans live in counties that violate federal air pollution
standards
7. Latino children are 60% more at risk than their white counterparts to have asthma
attacks
8. 17% of all African American children are asthma sufferers
9. Hispanics are 30% more likely to visit the hospital for asthma, as compared to non-
Hispanic Whites
10. In 2003, 21% of Latino children were uninsured, compared with 15% of African
American children

SOME INTERESTING FACTS

 F.A. Hayek was opposed to the theories of J.M. Keynes.
• It was Martha C. Nussbaum who said “You can’t really change the heart without
telling a story.”
• In 1990, Amartya Sen authored a controversial essay for the The New York
Review of Books, titled ‘More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing’. The essay
throws light on the gender imbalance and the reasons for it.
• Rawls lost his Christian faith as an infantryman in World War II on seeing the
capriciousness of death in combat and learning of the horrors of the Holocaust.
• Robert Nozick is popularly known as the philosophical father of Libertarianism.